Effect of timed dosing of usual antihypertensives according to patient chronotype on cardiovascular outcomes: the Chronotype sub-study cohort of the Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study.

Background: Timing drug administration to endogenous circadian rhythms may enhance treatment efficacy. In the Chronotype sub-study of the Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) clinical trial we examined whether timing of usual antihypertensive medications according to patient chronotype (a behavioural marker of personal circadian rhythm) may influence clinical cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: This was a cohort sub-study of TIME, a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, UK clinical trial of morning versus evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medications and cardiovascular outcomes. On August 3rd, 2020, all active TIME participants were invited to complete a validated chronotype questionnaire. Chronotype was quantitatively assessed as the mid sleep time on free days corrected for sleep debt on workdays (MSFsc). We analysed associations between chronotype and antihypertensive dosing time and explored their combined effect on cardiovascular outcomes (a composite endpoint of hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or non-fatal stroke, and single components) using proportional hazard time-to-event models adjusted for baseline covariates. These were used to specifically test for interactions between dosing time and chronotype. Findings: Between August 3, 2020, and March 31, 2021, 5358 TIME participants completed the online questionnaire. 2778 were previously randomised to morning dosing and 2580 to evening dosing of their usual antihypertensives. Chronotype was symmetrically distributed around a median MSFsc of 3:07 am. The composite endpoint increased for later MSFsc (later chronotype) dosed in the morning but not in those dosed in the evening (hazard ratios 1.46 [95% CI 1.14-1.86] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.70-1.30] per hour of MSFsc, respectively; interaction p = 0.036). Later chronotype was associated with increased risk of hospitalisation for non-fatal MI in the morning dosing group, and reduced risk in the evening dosing group (hazard ratios 1.62 [95% CI 1.18-2.22] and 0.66 [95% CI 0.44-1.00] per hour of MSFsc, respectively; interaction p < 0.001). No interaction between chronotype and antihypertensive dosing time was observed for stroke events. Interpretation: Alignment of dosing time of usual antihypertensives with personal chronotype could lower the incidence of non-fatal MI compared to a 'misaligned' dosing time regimen. Future studies are warranted to establish whether synchronizing administration time of antihypertensive therapy with individual chronotype reduces risk of MI. Funding: The TIME study was funded by the British Heart Foundation (CS/14/1/30659) with support from the British and Irish Hypertension Society.

Cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension with evening versus morning dosing of usual antihypertensives in the UK (TIME study): a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that evening dosing with antihypertensive therapy might have better outcomes than morning dosing. The Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aimed to investigate whether evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication improves major cardiovascular outcomes compared with morning dosing in patients with hypertension. METHODS: The TIME study is a prospective, pragmatic, decentralised, parallel-group study in the UK, that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with hypertension and taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), without restriction, stratification, or minimisation, to take all of their usual antihypertensive medications in either the morning (0600-1000 h) or in the evening (2000-0000 h). Participants were followed up for the composite primary endpoint of vascular death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Endpoints were identified by participant report or record linkage to National Health Service datasets and were adjudicated by a committee masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was assessed as the time to first occurrence of an event in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants who submitted at least one follow-up questionnaire. The study is registered with EudraCT (2011-001968-21) and ISRCTN (18157641), and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2011, and June 5, 2018, 24 610 individuals were screened and 21 104 were randomly assigned to evening (n=10 503) or morning (n=10 601) dosing groups. Mean age at study entry was 65·1 years (SD 9·3); 12 136 (57·5%) participants were men; 8968 (42·5%) were women; 19 101 (90·5%) were White; 98 (0·5%) were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British (ethnicity was not reported by 1637 [7·8%] participants); and 2725 (13·0%) had a previous cardiovascular disease. By the end of study follow-up (March 31, 2021), median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-5·7), and 529 (5·0%) of 10 503 participants assigned to evening treatment and 318 (3·0%) of 10 601 assigned to morning treatment had withdrawn from all follow-up. A primary endpoint event occurred in 362 (3·4%) participants assigned to evening treatment (0·69 events [95% CI 0·62-0·76] per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3·7%) assigned to morning treatment (0·72 events [95% CI 0·65-0·79] per 100 patient-years; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·83-1·10]; p=0·53). No safety concerns were identified. INTERPRETATION: Evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication was not different from morning dosing in terms of major cardiovascular outcomes. Patients can be advised that they can take their regular antihypertensive medications at a convenient time that minimises any undesirable effects. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation.

Home blood pressure monitors owned by participants in a large decentralised clinical trial in hypertension: the Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study.

Various home blood pressure monitors (HBPMs) are available to the public for purchase but only some are validated against standardised protocols. This study aimed to assess whether HBPMs owned by participants taking part in a clinical trial were validated models. The TIME study is a decentralised randomised trial investigating the effect of antihypertensive medication dosing time on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension. No HBPMs were provided to participants in this trial but patients were asked to report if they already owned one. We identified the model of HBPM reported by participants, then cross-referenced this against lists of validated HBPMs produced by dabl Educational Trust and the British and Irish Hypertension Society (BIHS). Of 21,104 participants, 10,464 (49.6%) reported their model of HBPM. 7464 (71.3%) of these participants owned a monitor that could be identified from the participants' entry. Of these, 6066 (81.3%) participants owned a monitor listed as validated by either dabl (n = 5903) or BIHS (n = 5491). Some were listed as validated by both. 1398 (18.7%) participants owned an identifiable HBPM that lacked clear evidence of validation. 6963 (93.3%) participants owned an upper arm HBPM and 501 (6.7%) owned a wrist HBPM. Validated HBPMs had a higher median online retail price of £45.00 compared to £20.00 for HBPMs lacking clear evidence of validation. A significant number of participants own HBPMs lacking evidence of validation.

Factors influencing home blood pressure monitor ownership in a large clinical trial.

Home blood pressure monitor (HBPM) ownership prevalence and the factors that influence it are unclear. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with HBPM ownership among participants in the Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) hypertension study. This study is a sub-analysis of the TIME study, a randomised trial investigating the effect of day-time versus night-time dosing of antihypertensive medication on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension. As part of the TIME study online registration process, participants were asked to indicate whether they owned an HBPM. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to determine factors associated with HBPM ownership. Of 21,104 randomised participants, 11,434 (54.2%) reported owning an HBPM. The mean age of all participants at enrolment was 67.7 ± 9.3 years, 12,134 (57.5%) were male, and 8892 (42.1%) reported a current or previous history of smoking. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of reporting HBPM owned include being male (OR:1.47; 95% CI 1.39-1.56) or residing in a less deprived socioeconomic region (IMD Decile 6-10) (OR:1.31; 95% CI 1.23-1.40). Participants with a history of diabetes mellitus (OR:0.74; 95% CI:0.64-0.86) or current smokers, compared to non-smokers, (OR:0.71; 95% CI:0.62-0.82) were less likely to report owning an HBPM. This study has identified important patient factors influencing HBPM ownership. Further qualitative research would be valuable to identify and explore potential patient-level barriers to engagement with self-monitoring of blood pressure.

Factors influencing participation and long-term commitment to self-monitoring of blood pressure in a large remote clinical trial: The treatment in morning versus evening (TIME) study.

This study investigates factors associated with active participation, and long-term commitment, to home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) in the TIME study, a remote clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of morning vs. evening dosing of antihypertensive medications on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension. Participants reporting HBPM ownership were invited to submit blood pressure (BP) measurements three-monthly. Factors associated with active participation (submitting at least one set of BP measurements), and longer-term commitment (at least six sets of BP measurements), were analysed using multivariable logistic regression. 11,059 participants agreed to provide BP measurements, of whom 7646 submitted. Active participation was associated with age (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) per decade, 1.29; 95% CI 1.23-1.36), positive family history of hypertension (AOR 1.11; 95% CI 1.01-1.21), number of antihypertensive medications (AOR, 1.10; 95% CI 1.04-1.16), and lower deprivation (AOR per decile, 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.05). People with higher body mass index (BMI) and smokers were less likely to participate (AOR, 0.91 (per increase of 5.0 kg/m2) and 0.63 respectively; all p < 0.001). 3,655 participants (47.8%) submitted measurements beyond one year. Non-modifiable risk factors - age (AOR per decade, 1.29; 95% CI 1.21-1.37) and positive family history of hypertension (AOR, 1.15; 95% CI 1.03-1.27) - were positively associated with longer-term commitment. Higher BMI (AOR per 5.0 kg/m2, 0.89; 95% CI 0.85-0.93), smoking (AOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.82) and higher baseline systolic blood pressure (AOR per mmHg, 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99) were negatively associated. This study provides insight into factors that influence HBPM use.

When innovation outpaces regulations: The legal challenges for direct-to-patient supply of investigational medicinal products.

AIMS: We profile the lack of specific regulation for direct-to-patient postal supply (DTP) of clinical trial medications (investigational medicinal products, IMPs) calling for increased efficiency of patient-centred multi-country remote clinical trials. METHODS: Questionnaires emailed to 28 European Economic Area (EEA) Medical Product Licensing Authorities (MPLAs) and Swissmedic MPLA were analysed in 2019/2020. The questionnaire asked whether DTP of IMPs was legal, followed by comparative legal analysis profiling relevant national civil and criminal liability provisions in 30 European jurisdictions (including The Netherlands), finally summarising accessible COVID-19-related guidance in searches of 30 official MPLA websites in January 2021. RESULTS: Twenty MPLAs responded. Twelve consented to response publication in 2021. DTP was not widely authorised, though different phrases were used to explain this. Our legal review of national laws in 29 EEA jurisdictions and Switzerland did not identify any specific sanctions for DTP of IMPs; however, we identified potential national civil and criminal liability provisions. Switzerland provides legal clarity where DTP of IMPs is conditionally legal. MPLA webpage searches for COVID-19 guidance noted conditional acceptance by 19 MPLAs. CONCLUSIONS: Specific national legislation authorising DTP of IMPs, defining IMP categories, and conditions permitting the postage and delivery by courier in an EEA-wide clinical trial, would support innovative patient-centred research for multi-country remote clinical trials. Despite it appearing more acceptable to do this between EU Member States, provided each EU MPLA and ethics board authorises it, temporary Covid-19 restrictions in national Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidance discourages innovative research into the safety and effectiveness of clinical trial medications.

Protocol for assessment of sleep quality and duration in the Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study: a randomised controlled trial using online patient-reported outcome measures.

INTRODUCTION: We will use the existing online mechanisms of the Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study to collect patient-reported outcome measures of sleep quality to determine whether nocturnal dosing of antihypertensives affects sleep quality, when compared with morning dosing.The TIME study aims to determine if morning or evening dosing of antihypertensive medications is more effective in preventing heart attacks and strokes. The cardiovascular end points in TIME are identified by individual-level linkage to routinely collected hospital admissions and mortality data; these data are supplemented with participant-completed follow-up questionnaires, administered online.This substudy will provide information regarding the relative acceptability of morning and evening dosing of antihypertensives that will be essential should the TIME study results prompt doctors to consider advising particular dosing times to their patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: TIME participants are aged over 18 years and prescribed at least one antihypertensive drug, taken once a day. They are self-enrolled and consented on the secure TIME website (www.timestudy.co.uk) and then randomised to dosing time. Study follow-up is conducted by automated email. Average participant follow-up is expected to be 4 years. Participants in the sleep substudy are asked to complete an online sleep quality questionnaire at baseline, after 3 months and annually. This includes a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and an Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The primary outcome of the TIME Sleep substudy is sleep quality as measured by the PSQI. Secondary outcomes include sleep quantity and duration, and an analysis of any association between sleep quality and the main outcome measures of the TIME study (heart attack, stroke and vascular death). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics (MREC reference: 11/AL/0309), and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROTOCOL VERSION: 9 (approved 19 July 2017). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UKCRN ID: 17071. ISRCTN: 18157641. Pre-results.

The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study: analysis of recruitment, follow-up and retention rates post-recruitment.

BACKGROUND: The use of information technology (IT) is now the preferred method of capturing and storing clinical research data. The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study predominantly uses electronic data capture and IT to compare morning dosing of hypertensive medication against evening dosing. Registration, consent, participant demographics and follow-up data are all captured via the study website. The aim of this article is to assess the success of the TIME methodology compared with similar studies. METHODS: To assess the TIME study, published literature on similar clinical trials was reviewed and compared against TIME recruitment, follow-up and email interaction data. RESULTS: The TIME website registered 31,695 individuals, 21,116 of whom were randomised. Recruitment cost per randomised participant varied by strategy: £17.40 by GP practice, £3.08 by UK Biobank and £58.82 for GoShare. Twelve-month follow-up retention rates were 96%. A total of 1089 participants have withdrawn from their assigned time of dosing, 2% of whom have declined follow-up by record linkage or further contact. When the TIME data are compared with similar study data, study recruitment is very successful. However, TIME suffers difficulties with participant follow-up and withdrawal rates similar to those of conventional studies. CONCLUSIONS: The TIME study has been successful in recruitment. Follow-up, retention rates and withdrawal rates are all acceptable, but ongoing work is required to ensure participants remain engaged with the study. Various recruitment strategies are necessary, and all viable options should be encouraged to maintain participant engagement throughout the life of studies using IT.

Electronic case report forms and electronic data capture within clinical trials and pharmacoepidemiology.

AIMS: Researchers in clinical and pharmacoepidemiology fields have adopted information technology (IT) and electronic data capture, but these remain underused despite the benefits. This review discusses electronic case report forms and electronic data capture, specifically within pharmacoepidemiology and clinical research. METHODS: The review used PubMed and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers library. Search terms used were agreed by the authors and documented. PubMed is medical and health based, whereas Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers is technology based. The review focuses on electronic case report forms and electronic data capture, but briefly considers other relevant topics; consent, ethics and security. RESULTS: There were 1126 papers found using the search terms. Manual filtering and reviewing of abstracts further condensed this number to 136 relevant manuscripts. The papers were further categorized: 17 contained study data; 40 observational data; 27 anecdotal data; 47 covering methodology or design of systems; one case study; one literature review; two feasibility studies; and one cost analysis. CONCLUSION: Electronic case report forms, electronic data capture and IT in general are viewed with enthusiasm and are seen as a cost-effective means of improving research efficiency, educating participants and improving trial recruitment, provided concerns about how data will be protected from misuse can be addressed. Clear operational guidelines and best practises are key for healthcare providers, and researchers adopting IT, and further work is needed on improving integration of new technologies with current systems. A robust method of evaluation for technical innovation is required.

Methods of a large prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point study comparing morning versus evening dosing in hypertensive patients: the Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study.

INTRODUCTION: Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) appears to be a better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than daytime BP. The BP lowering effects of most antihypertensive therapies are often greater in the first 12 h compared to the next 12 h. The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aims to establish whether evening dosing is more cardioprotective than morning dosing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The TIME study uses the prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point (PROBE) design. TIME recruits participants by advertising in the community, from primary and secondary care, and from databases of consented patients in the UK. Participants must be aged over 18 years, prescribed at least one antihypertensive drug taken once a day, and have a valid email address. After the participants have self-enrolled and consented on the secure TIME website (http://www.timestudy.co.uk) they are randomised to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or the evening. Participant follow-ups are conducted after 1 month and then every 3 months by automated email. The trial is expected to run for 5 years, randomising 10,269 participants, with average participant follow-up being 4 years. The primary end point is hospitalisation for the composite end point of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke (cerebrovascular accident; CVA) or any vascular death determined by record-linkage. Secondary end points are: each component of the primary end point, hospitalisation for non-fatal stroke, hospitalisation for non-fatal MI, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation or death from congestive heart failure. The primary outcome will be a comparison of time to first event comparing morning versus evening dosing using an intention-to-treat analysis. The sample size is calculated for a two-sided test to detect 20% superiority at 80% power. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: TIME has ethical approval in the UK, and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UKCRN17071; Pre-results.